Sunday, September 4, 2011

More CSC Coverups

As we have seen evolutionists at the California Science Center, in response to the booking of a film that questions evolution, censored the film. To hide this violation of the public trust they constructed a cover-up: The evolutionists said they cancelled the event because of a press release. This lie was in stark contrast to internal emails. One CSC Vice President wrote that the main problem was that the event was sponsored by “an anti-Darwin/creationist group.” And as the CSC Vice President of Communications explained, the CSC Chief Executive Officer instructed his staff to find a false pretense:

Jeff just called and is wondering if they violated an agreement -- like was this supposed to be a private screening or did they say it was a public screening? If they misrepresented the event, then we can cancel them.

Next the evolutionists lied about the press release, claiming it implied the CSC was a sponsor of the event. But the press release said no such thing. In fact it explicitly stated that “The screening is sponsored and hosted by the American Freedom Alliance.”

Next the evolutionists raised the stakes with an even more bold lie. They said there was, in fact, no censorship. After all, were they not originally willing to book the event? Again, internal emails exposed the lie. The booking was accepted only because there was a lack of vigilance. As one CSC Vice President wrote:

This screening event was booked through the Events Dept., and they were unaware of the nature of the groups involved. It has come to Jeff’s attention and he is “working on it.”

Similarly, another evolutionist from the nearby Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County concluded:

Apparently the IMAX was booking events without CSC knowing about all of them, and when they found out they immediately cancelled the event.

Of course there was censorship.

The next evolution lie was about the court case. This was one case where the evolutionists could not fool the judge and lie their way through a trial. They had to settle so they lied about the settlement, saying they were right all along and that the sponsor and the Discovery Institute had not “learned their lesson.”

In fact it was the evolutionists who have not learned their lesson, for this trail of lies was by no means an isolated event. From blatantly misrepresenting science to censorship, blackballing dissenters, ruining careers and misleading judges, lying and flaunting the law is a way of life for evolutionists. It is ironic that Inherit the Wind, a play targeting precisely such misdeeds, is exploited by evolutionists as their poster child.

In this particular case, the evolutionists at CSC had been lying all along. For instance, before the above litany of lies, the evolutionists attempted to manipulate justice by using a phony shell organization. Unlike the publicly-funded CSC, the shell organization, dubbed the CSC Foundation, was private and so escaped public accountability.

In other words, so they can leech off the public the evolutionists funnel the funding through the CSC while their misdeeds are funneled through “the Foundation.”

Without public funding evolution would die a quick death. They must have your tax dollars. But evolution also relies on manipulation. These two are at odds with each other. Taking public funds and perpetrating untruths don’t mix well. So in order for evolutionists to have both their funding and their lies they need a shell game.

Consider, for example, one Christina M. Sion. Ms. Sion is a CSC employee. In fact, not only is Sion a CSC employee, she is a Vice President. That is according to the CSC’s own promotional material, such as this press release, which states:

“We were absolutely thrilled to win the Best Non Profit Event Concept category with our Star Wars themed Discovery Ball. We especially felt so privileged to be in such good company. The events that were showcased this year were nothing less than stellar and it reinforced how sincerely delighted we are to be part of the events industry in LA,” said the California Science Center Vice President of Event Services, Chris Sion.

And this is also what her email signature shows:

Next consider one Shell Amega. Like Sion, Amega is a CSC employee. In fact, Amega is the CSC Vice President of Communications. At least according to her email signature:

Amega’s status as a CSC employee is also confirmed on any number of web pages, such as this press release, which lists Amega is a CSC press contact.

But when it came time for the evolutionists to give an account of their actions, suddenly Sion and Amega were identified as employees not of the public CSC, but of the private CSC Foundation. And as such, the evolutionists claimed their records were private, not public. How convenient. So evolutionists take the public monies, but they are not accountable.

It was yet another lie the evolutionists used to try to avoid the light of day. It was one lie after another as the evolutionists manipulated justice and violated the public trust. These lies pale in comparison to the lies evolutionists tell everyday about science, but they are lies nonetheless. Oh, what a web we weave.

12 comments:

Dr HunterSince you seem to be in the thick of this maybe you can help shed a little more light. I've looked but am unable find the actual press release from the discovery institute or afa. I am sure it would be a simple matter to get the the actual copy of the press release for you and this would forever refute CSC' s claim empirically.Thanks for getting to the bottom of this sordid affair.

Since you seem to be in the thick of this maybe you can help shed a little more light. I've looked but am unable find the actual press release from the discovery institute or afa. I am sure it would be a simple matter to get the the actual copy of the press release for you and this would forever refute CSC' s claim empirically.Thanks for getting to the bottom of this sordid affair.

LOL! I wonder how long you IDiots are going to bleat about this 'grand triumph' over evil materialistic Darwinism?

Never mind that the score for you clowns is still 0 wins 2,866,234,567 losses, 1 tie.

I guess for professional liars like the Discovery Institute that one settle-out-of-court tie is the highlight of their whole existence. Heaven knows you clowns don't have any scientific evidence to boast about.

Hey, maybe you could make a movie about it! I bet you could get Ann Coulter and Ben Stein real cheap.

Thank you. In light of the headline of the press release perhaps you should rethink your accusation Next the evolutionists lied about the press release, claiming it implied the CSC was a sponsor of the event. But the press release said no such thing.This is not a completely true statement, it most certainly did imply that both the Smithsonian and CSC were affiliated with the showing apart from renting the theatre,why else identify who ran the IMAX ? And certainly you know that to imply something it need not be expressly stated,in fact you want the reader to make that connection. So this "the press release said no such thing" seems misleading ,conflating implicit with explicit . Is this just a favorable framing of the truth or designed to intentionally leave a false impression or just making too much of something ? Who's to judge? Again thanks for the link

Thank you. In light of the headline of the press release perhaps you should rethink your accusation Next the evolutionists lied about the press release, claiming it implied the CSC was a sponsor of the event. But the press release said no such thing. This is not a completely true statement, it most certainly did imply that both the Smithsonian and CSC were affiliated with the showing apart from renting the theatre,why else identify who ran the IMAX ?

Let's look at what the press release actually said

"The debate over Darwin will come to California on October 25th, when the Smithsonian Institution's west coast affiliate premieres Darwin's Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record, a new intelligent design film which challenges Darwinian evolution. "

By 'Smithsonian Institution's west coast affiliate' the AFA obviously meant the CSC. But the CSC wasn't premiering the film, the AFA was. The CSC and Smithsonian had nothing to do with the film save renting building space.

That's the sort of blatant dishonesty we've come to expect from the IDiots and the professional liars at the DI. You want to defend the wording of the press release CH?

Better yet, let's not forget what someone actually from AFA said about the press release...

"Whomever at [sic] wrote the copy on the Discovery Institute press releases should have his head examined….. I thought the problem was buried in the text of the documents…. NOT THE HEADLINES. Talk about waving a red flag in front of a bull. It seems like we're deliberately trying to screw this up!!!"

Furthermore, it looks like the DI was refusing to release key evidence in the case on the grounds of "attorney client privilege." The details of which are spelled out here.

The post summarizes...

So here it is in a nutshell: Becker is suing the Science Center, which needs Becker’s evidence to defend against Becker’s lawsuit, and Becker says he won’t supply the evidence because of Becker’s alleged professional relationship with the Discoveroids, and the Discoveroids want Becker’s lawsuit to be successful. Tricky business, isn’t it?

It's an an ethical nightmare at best. Worst case, Becker and the DI were improperly invoking the attorney-client privilege to shield communications with a critical witness (Becker)

CH: It was yet another lie the evolutionists used to try to avoid the light of day. It was one lie after another as the evolutionists manipulated justice and violated the public trust.

The Foundation for Thought and Ethics became involved in the 2005 Dover trial when it became clear that their published book, "Of Pandas and People", would be a major focus of litigation.

First the FTE filed motions for a protective motion to block subpoenas requesting past, present and future version of the book under objection of intellectual property rights. Judge Jones partially upheld the motion, ruling that future versions of the book were not to be made public until it was published by the FTE and their attorneys were to be informed of who received draft copies.

When this attempt to block disclosure failed, the FTE then filed a motion to intervene as a third-party defendant, again claiming that it would compromise intellectual properly interested in it's unpublished work despite the partial protection grant. Furthermore, it claimed the FTE they would occur significant financial should OPaP be found to be religious in nature.

Had the FTE's motion been granted, they would have become a codefendant with the Dover school board, and gained the ability to bring their own lawyers and expert witnesses to the the case. However, at this time, William A. Dembski, co-author of the new Pandas edition, and the Discovery Institute withdrew from the case. The Judge told the defendants: "To me it looks like Mr. Dembski was dropped as an expert because he didn't want to produce, or because his employer didn't want to produce the manuscript [on subpoena to the court] of The Design of Life."

Judge Jones eventually denied the motion, describing their excuses for not becoming involved earlier "both unavailing and disingenuous" and finding that the FTE failed to demonstrate "significantly protectable interest" warranting intervention and that it's interest would not be adequately represented by the defendants.

With both attempts by the FTE to block disclosure of previous OPaP drafts having failed, they were carefully reviewed. Judge Jones ruling includes a summary of the results...

"As Plaintiffs meticulously and effectively presented to the Court, Pandas went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards, which held that the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science. By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge: (1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID; (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times, were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and (3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards. This word substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words was effected without any corresponding change in content .... The weight of the evidence clearly demonstrates, as noted, that the systemic change from "creation" to "intelligent design" occurred sometime in 1987, after the Supreme Court?s important Edwards decision."

velikovskys said...>>>>Let's look at what the press release actually said

"The debate over Darwin will come to California on October 25th, when the Smithsonian Institution's west coast affiliate premieres Darwin's Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record, a new intelligent design film which challenges Darwinian evolution. "<<<<

Well, those who point fingers....

In the context of ALL the press release, the sentence velikovskys quoted out of context of the HEADLINE of the press release, does NOT imply sponsorship of the Smithsonian or the CSC, but informs the reader more fully of the venue.

Perhaps the first sentence could have reiterated, "...premiers AT the Smithsonian's affiliate" but that was already said that in the Headline. Those in arms about the screening would have been no happier nor any more honest.

Red Reader, it's obvious to anyone with more than two brain cells that the AFA was trying to add unwarranted legitimacy by name dropping 'Smithsonian' and implying that the Smithsonian endorsed the movie. That violated their contract, which is why the showing got cancelled.

That sort of blatantly obvious and willful dishonesty doesn't fly with the scientific community. It's also exactly why IDiots who resort to such shenanigans are held in such low regard.

The subsequent crowing by the DI only confirms that the whole thing was just a sad, cheap publicity stunt by the AFA.

Red:In the context of ALL the press release, the sentence velikovskys quoted out of context of the HEADLINE of the press release, does NOT imply sponsorship of the Smithsonian or the CSC, but informs the reader more fully of the venue.Red,here's a tip. When you accuse someone of something make sure you accuse the correct person.It weakens your case if you can't get the basic facts correct. Thorton quoted the press release. So the "Smithsonian affiliate " informs the reader more fully of what? The address is helpful but who owns the venue not so much. Unless of course you wish to intentionally leave a false impression with the reader concerning who is premiering the movie,that in ethical circles is known as a lie. Again why is the CSC's relationship to the Smithsonian even relevant to the venue,why would a reader need this fact? A fact important enough to the press release to include it in the headline? Let's guess

Cornelius G. Hunter is a graduate of the University of Illinois where
he earned a Ph.D. in Biophysics and Computational Biology. He is
Adjunct Professor at Biola University and author of the award-winning Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Hunter’s other books include Darwin’s Proof, and his newest book Science’s Blind Spot
(Baker/Brazos Press). Dr. Hunter's interest in the theory of evolution
involves the historical and theological, as well as scientific, aspects
of the theory. His website is http://www.darwins-god.blogspot.com/